muscleman

If the bloodbath comes on Monday, why buy today instead of on Monday?

Gio... I see you like smart capital allocators. What stocks are you tracking right now but not yet bought? For example, any thoughts on TDG? I saw you posted there as well. How would you compare TDG with other businesses like VRX?

John Carney can really make a living writing these kinds of articles for WSJ. :)

How much does Pabrai charge in Dhandho holdings? Does he charge the typical 2/20?

Not now. I sold out to raise capital for the BH rights offering and the LBRDA spin-off and rights offering. As right now I don’t want to decrease significantly the percentage of cash I hold. I surely plan to buy it back later. ;) Gio Thank you for bringing up BH to my attention, and big congrats for your business success!

I have at least doubled the capital invested in VRX, ENDP, and Third Point Offshore. I have made a lot of money with LMCA and OAK. I also have more than 150k Euros of capital gains in Fairfax, with 30k Euros more received as dividends. I have made some money with GLRE. Most of all I have lost practically no money (with the only exception of LRE, which took me by surprise…). My portfolio today: 33% Fairfax, 15% LMCA + LBRDA 15% BH (way undervalued imo!) 9% GLRE 28% very short term US treasuries Gio No TPRE?

No position but a very happy customer. Can you please post the VIC write up here? I can't see it. The current P/E is over 20. That would be too much for a 16% YoY growth, no? I am a customer too. What I noticed is that I've never gotten any price improvements on my limit orders. Not sure why. ::)

Thank you for your help. I build a 15% position on these preferreds. Maybe you can call me crazy, as I am a legal idiot. My primary rational is that in order for recapitalization of these companies to work, they have to treat current shareholders fairly. Otherwise they will fail to attract private capital. And yes, I am prepared to look like a fool, if this position blows up. :)

I see. Why did he file the case in D.C. district court any way? It looks redundant from the beginning, doesn't it?

hmm... What's the rational behind that? ::)

Normally how long does it take for Sweeney to respond? You previously mentioned to me that Lamberth's court is in D.C., so it is eligible to set as a precedence of other courts in D.C. venue, right? Does this apply to the Sweeney court? It is a federal court, not a district court though. My guess is that she'll respond by the end of the year. (That's the outside limit, IMO -- she might even respond earlier if she's pissed the government is delaying production.) Lamberth's court is in D.C. However, it is not in the same "chain" as the Court of Federal Claims (Sweeney's court) even though they are both in D.C. Therefore, Lamberth's opinion is not eligible as binding precedent in the Court of Federal Claims. Both Lamberth and Sweeney's courts are federal courts. As I said before, the complexities of the legal aspects and the policy aspects of this investment make it not terribly ideal for investors without a background in either. Thank you! This is indeed hard for me to fully understand, but I am not afraid of challenges. :)

Normally how long does it take for Sweeney to respond? You previously mentioned to me that Lamberth's court is in D.C., so it is eligible to set as a precedence of other courts in D.C. venue, right? Does this apply to the Sweeney court? It is a federal court, not a district court though.

That would not be easy for me. My first language is not even English.

Thank you!

Thank you for helping me understand these matters. I am not from a law background, so it is hard for me. How would you expect the Lamberth ruling to set any precedence on the other cases? For the Sweeney case, I guess it may not have much impact as it is a different venue. But how about this Iowa court's case? Basically, the plantiffs in the Iowa court has to argue that Lamberth is wrong, and the judge in the Iowa court has to agree that Lamberth is wrong, in order to move forward, right? Is that why you call it a mini-appeal process? No problem. It's a complicated investment, and I'd actually caution most people to stay away unless they have (1) an understanding of the legal case, (2) an understanding of the policy rationales or (3) complete faith in the Berkowitz, et. al. crowd involved. Otherwise, you get people who mass-dump (i.e. October 1st) when they don't understand all the moving parts. The Lamberth ruling is precedence only for cases within D.C. Iowa is free to agree or disagree with it as they please, since they're not in a "direct line" of precedence with D.C. Iowa is a different venue from D.C. Yes, the Iowa court has to conclude that Lamberth is wrong to proceed, essentially. That's the reason why they asked for briefs on the Lamberth ruling from both plaintiffs and defendants. Thank you! So how do the judges decide what cases can set as precedences and what cannot? Is that merely based on the location of the court (D.C. vs Iowa)?

Thank you for helping me understand these matters. I am not from a law background, so it is hard for me. How would you expect the Lamberth ruling to set any precedence on the other cases? For the Sweeney case, I guess it may not have much impact as it is a different venue. But how about this Iowa court's case? Basically, the plantiffs in the Iowa court has to argue that Lamberth is wrong, and the judge in the Iowa court has to agree that Lamberth is wrong, in order to move forward, right? Is that why you call it a mini-appeal process?

But they have not produced any documents either, right? What will happen next if they just delay the requests for production of documents forever? Maybe there is no document at all. If that's true, they cannot produce any documents unless they fake the documents. Will they eventually admit that there were no documents produced at that time? If they do, the defendants will surely lose the case, right?

Sorry I think I must have missed this. I didn't see anywhere in the previous posts about the Iowa court having already rejected Lamberth's suggestion that HERA bars all sorts of different claims. When did that happen? From the previous post on Oct 20th 2014, it looks like this is still being argued. http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/fnma-and-fmcc-preferreds-in-search-of-the-elusive-10-bagger/msg194079/?topicseen#msg194079

If the government keeps denial of producing documents for the discovery phase, what will happen next?

Why would a settlement become more likely if the Iowa court determines that they have jurisdiction? I am confused.

Thank you! On page 61, you said: So why is the burden of proof on the plantiffs side now? If there is no administrative record for the sweep decision, isn't it the FHFA's turn to prove that they made a rational decision? In addition, how likely is it that the FHFA fake an administrative record right now, and show it to the judge? Is it possible that the government somehow finds an excuse to fire this judge and let someone else take over? Is my mind going too crazy? :P

The leverage re the litigation. I think the government wants to keep the current state as it is forever, but that seems impossible. They cannot exercise their 79% warrants on the common because then they will have to account for the trillions of liabilties on the national debt. But they can't just let this 79% value go away. That would be too stupid either. What will they do then? Letting the warrants expire and then keep taking all profits each month from Fannie and Freddie? Is that their plan?

So what are the leverages of the government at this point? Can they interfere with the discovery process?

I remember last year you were quite skeptical about the litigation prospects. You said: "(2) Standing - This actually worries me. It's possible that none of the currently filed cases can go forward because the plaintiffs might lack standing to bring a case (directly and/or derivatively) against the U.S. government / FHFA / Treasury. Professor Epstein's response to this is not compelling to me. When you have to step back and rely on "general legal maxims" and/or "the broad unconstitutionality" of a legal statute, you are probably in trouble. Notice that he does not cite case law for any of this stuff..." What made you change your mind? Is it judge Sweeney's award for discovery?

Do you expect a settlement before trial?